Technical Memorandum No. 7

TM No.
Technical Memorandum No. 7
CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

DUSCHESNE VALLEY WTP EXPANSION PROJECT
Preliminary Design
Technical Memorandum No. 7 DRAFT
To:
Cort Lambson, CUWCD Project Manager
From:
Pete Kreft, MWH

Matt Moughamian, MWH
Date:
December 01, 2006
Subject:
TM-7: Rapid Mix and Flocculation Facilities
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant (DVWTP) will be expanded to provide 8.0 mgd of
treated water from its current 4.0 mgd nominal capacity. The existing direct filtration plant has a
pumped jet diffusion rapid mixer (also referred to as a flash mixer) at the inlet to the flocculation
basins. The flocculation basins use mechanical, vertical mixers. This existing rapid mix and
flocculation system has provided effective pretreatment for the shallow-depth automatic
backwashing filters for the past 26 years.
The existing plant was designed to be expanded to 8.0 mgd via the addition of a parallel
flocculation basin while continuing to use the existing flash mixer. However, the existing filter
system is out-dated, the media depth is too shallow, and is therefore inadequate to meet the
Districts needs for the expanded plant. TM-4 reviews alternative treatment processes and
recommends that the expanded DVWTP continue to use direct filtration as the primary
suspended solids removal process preceded by ozonation for multiple water quality benefits. As
explained in TM-9 and TM-11, the District prefers a modern deep-bed, granular-media filter
system that will significantly raise the plants hydraulic gradeline and process structure heights.
These improvements makes it very challenging, if not impossible, to continue using the existing
flocculation basin for the expanded plant. Coupled with the use of ozonation prior to
flocculation, the existing flash mix system will also need to be replaced.
This TM reviews rapid mix and flocculation alternatives and recommends the preferred systems.
This TM also briefly addresses the planning for a future clarification process, if the DVWTP
ever needs to incorporate conventional treatment for some reason.
Central Utah Water Conservancy District

Duchesne Valley WTP Expansion Project - Preliminary Design
Page 1

Rapid Mix and Flocculation Improvements
DRAFT
December, 2006
RAPID MIXING
Process Description
Flash (rapid) mixing is a critical component of the water treatment process. It is necessary to
quickly and completely disperse coagulant chemicals into the raw water stream, thus allowing
the formation of a flocculated particle that can be removed via sedimentation (if conventional
treatment is practiced) and filtration. Metal coagulants, such as alum and ferric chloride, require
instantaneous flash mixing since their hydrolysis occurs within seconds, and subsequent charge
destabilization and adsorption of colloids and suspended solids is immediate. The flash mix step
is located immediately ahead of the flocculation step in the treatment process train.
Mixing is also required for other chemicals, such as coagulant aids, pH adjustment compounds
and oxidants/disinfectants, but the mixing process need not be instantaneous. In these cases, it is
important that the chemicals be thoroughly mixed throughout the flow stream prior to the
following process step and prior to process water quality monitoring.
The sequence of chemical addition will be vital to optimum chemical consumption and process
effectiveness. To this end, multiple chemical addition locations are proposed for some chemicals
to provide flexibility in the chemical addition sequence.
Flash Mix Alternatives Evaluation
Several methods are available to provide chemical mixing and coagulation including:
In-line static flash mixing

Mechanical turbine flash mixing
Pumped jet diffusion flash mixing
Hydraulic flash mixing
The evaluation of the flash mixing options will focus on performance, reliability, simplicity,
flexibility and location. The flash mixing system will be constructed with a capacity range of 2
to 8 mgd to cover the range of flows to be treated by the expanded DVWTP. This new flash mix
system will be located downstream of the preozone contact basin and prior to the new
flocculation basins.
In-line Static Flash Mixing
In-line static mixers are fabricated, motionless elements that are placed inside the conduit that
carries the fluid that is to be mixed. In-line static mixers are very effective systems for flash
mixing when plant production rates are somewhat constant. However, in-line static mixers
typically have no more than about a 2:1 turndown ratio because the mixing efficiency is a
function of fluid velocity. Headloss is also an issue in that a headloss of 2 to 5 feet could be
expected for this application. In-line static mixers are considered to be very reliable as there are
no moving parts, and are also relatively inexpensive in terms of capital, operation and
maintenance costs.
Page 2

DRAFT
December, 2006
In-line static mixers would provide good flash mixing under many operating scenarios.
However, these systems produce significant headloss and would require at least two units for
adequate turndown. The added headloss from this mixing system would require that the water
level in the upstream ozone contact basin be raised that much higher above the water level in the
flocculation basins. For these reasons, this option is eliminated from further consideration.
Mechanical Turbine Flash Mixing
High-speed mechanical turbine mixers are frequently used for flash mix applications. The
turbines can be employed in two different configurations for this purpose, in-line and deckmounted. Each configuration is discussed below.
In-line Turbine Flash Mixers. In-line turbine flash mixers employ a motor-driven propeller
mixer set directly within the fluid conveyance pipe. A typical in-line turbine mixer would be set
in a constricted portion of the pipeline to increase flow velocity to aid in chemical mixing. The
restriction of the pipeline and physical obstruction of the propeller mixer tend to introduce
significant headloss. The reliability of in-line turbine mixers is sensitive to the durability of the
belt-driven propellers and the associated housing.
This system produces significant headloss, requires substantial maintenance on the drive unit and
is energy intensive. For these reasons, this option was eliminated from further consideration.
Deck-Mounted Vertical Turbine Flash Mixer. Deck-mounted vertical turbine flash mixer
systems are prevalent in water treatment plants. These flash mixing systems typically consist of
an un-pressurized mix chamber with a deck-mounted mixing drive connected to a shaft and
impeller. Vertical turbine flash mix systems are energy intensive. Typical energy inputs range
from 0.8 to 1.0 hp/mgd of treatment capacity. Therefore, a vertical turbine flash mixer for the
DVWTP would require a 7.5-hp, or greater, drive.
Although vertical turbine flash mixers are commonly applied in water treatment plants, they have
many shortcomings. Turbine flash mixing systems have greater power requirements than do jet
diffusion flash mixers and are not as efficient due to back mixing (i.e., a higher dose of coagulant
is required to achieve the same coagulation effect). Vertical turbine flash mix systems are often
subject to short-circuiting and may be prone to shaft problems and gear drive failures. For these
reasons, a deck-mounted vertical turbine flash mixing system is not recommended for the
DVWTP.
Pumped Jet Diffusion Flash Mixing
Pumped jet diffusion flash mixing systems utilize a high velocity jet of water to impart the flash
mixing energy to the process flow. Most frequently, the source of the water jet is a sidestream
delivered by an off-line pump. The mixing jet is delivered into the main process stream with a
mixing nozzle or with a specially designed deflection cone. The existing DVWTP uses a
pumped jet diffusion system with a horizontal centrifugal pump providing the side-stream flow
that discharges counter-current to the main flow as it exits the raw water pipeline into the
Page 3

DRAFT
December, 2006
flocculation basin inlet channel. Another possible configuration can use vertical turbine pump(s)
instead of a horizontal centrifugal pump. The primary metal salt coagulant (alum or ferric
chloride) would be introduced into the jet stream as it exits the mixing nozzle.
Pumped jet diffusion mixing offers many advantages over mechanical turbine flash mixing, such
as achieving instantaneous mixing in a smaller volume that more closely resembles ideal plug
flow conditions and creating less headloss than other systems because the mixing nozzle is small
and unobtrusive. A pumped diffusion flash mixing system also offers the ability to modulate
mixing with a throttling valve or variable frequency drive, if desired. The Districts Utah Valley
WTP uses a pumped jet diffusion mixing system.
The sidestream pumped flow for these types of systems is typically in the 2.5 to 5% range of raw
water flow. For an 8.3 mgd maximum raw water flow, the sidestream flow would be in the
range of 150 to 300 gpm. With a deflection cone, the jet diffusion flash mix system would use
about a 2-hp pump. Using a commercial mixing nozzle system, pump horsepower would be
closer to 3-hp based upon a 300 gpm sidestream flow (~5% of 8.3 mgd).
Clogging due to coagulant scaling at the mixing nozzle is a possible problem with pumped jet
diffusion mixing systems. Clogging may be caused by dilute metal salt coagulant scale. Alum
and ferric solutions should not be diluted beyond one and five percent, respectively, if carrier
water is added to the flow-stream. To avoid scaling, a separate line would convey the alum or
ferric solution to the end of the nozzle for mixing with the jet as it leaves the nozzle.
Hydraulic Flash Mixing
Hydraulic flash mixing takes advantage of turbulence created by water treatment plant structures.
Many water treatment plants receive raw water from an elevated supply and require a flowcontrol valve to dissipate energy (head). Hydraulic-mixing efficiency is a function of the
headloss created by the flow-control valve. Since the DVWTP receives raw water from a
pumped system with variable speed drive pumps, it will not require a flow-control valve. Also,
because a hydraulic mixing system requires headloss, it would further raise the height of the
upstream ozone contact basins similar to the in-line static mixer system. Therefore, hydraulic
flash mixing is not recommended for the DVWTP.
Summary and Conclusions
The recommended flash mixing system for the DVWTP is a pumped jet diffusion flash mixing
system, with a single injection point located downstream of the ozone contact basin and
upstream of the flocculation basin. The pumped diffusion flash mixer will consist of two (2) of
3-hp end-suction pump (one duty and one standby) located in the Influent Flow Control Structure
gallery, with associated jet nozzle(s) located in the 24-inch diameter ozonated water supply line.
The 24-inch piping will also supply some additional mixing of the coagulant and polymer, prior
to the water entering the flocculation basins.
Primary coagulant addition will also be provided for via a stand-by in-pipe diffuser if the pump
system is ever out for maintenance. The coagulated water will discharge from the 24-inch pipe
Page 4

DRAFT
December, 2006
into the flocculation basin influent channel. The following chemicals will be added to the
ozonated water pipeline at the flash mix area:
Chlorine solution
Spare (possibly for future acid)
Cationic polymer coagulant aid (upstream of primary coagulant)
Primary coagulant (at flash mix nozzle)
Cationic polymer (downstream of primary coagulant)
Powdered activated carbon
TM-8 describes the recommended chemical systems for the expanded DVWTP.
Primary design criteria for the pumped diffusion flash mixing system are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Flash Mix Preliminary Design Criteria
Raw Water Flow Range (mgd)
2.0 to 8.3
Type of Sidestream Pumps
End-suction centrifugal, constant speed,

1200 rpm)
No. of Pumps
1 duty + 1 standby
Equivalent Flash Mix Pipe Diameter (inch)
24
Sidestream Flow (% of Main Stream Flow

at 8.3 mgd)
Pump Flow Range (gpm)
150 to 280
Pump Flow TDH (ft)
25 to 30
Sidestream Pump Power (hp)
3
1.0
Mixing Zone Pipe Diameters
(typ. between 0.5 to 2.0 diameters)
-1
G value (sec )
750 - 1,000
o
Absol. Viscosity of Water at 5 C (lb-s/ft )

Jet Nozzle Discharge Velocity (fps)

3.172 x 10-5
20 - 30
Page 5

DRAFT
December, 2006
FLOCCULATION
Process Description
The goal of flocculation for a direct filtration plant is to develop stable and durable floc that can
be filtered by the granular media filter. The floc must be able to penetrate into and adhere within
the media to promote long filter runs between backwashes. For a conventional plant, the goal of
flocculation is to produce a settleable floc that can be removed in the sedimentation basins with
limited floc carryover to the filters. The mixing energy and mixing time requirements can be
significantly different for direct filtration and conventional treatment. Direct filtration usually
requires higher mixing energies and shorter mixing times compared to conventional treatment,
depending on site-specific conditions including water quality parameters such as turbidity and
temperature.
Due to the low turbidity of Starvation Reservoir and the long history of successful performance
of the existing plant, the expanded DVWTP is recommended to remain a direct filtration plant
while incorporating preozonation for multiple water quality benefits. Space is being allocated on
the site and within the hydraulic profile for a future clarification process if drinking water rules
or changes in water quality ever require this additional process. Therefore, this TM focuses on
flocculation requirements for the direct filtration plant.
Based on past plant experience and the Districts desire to maintain maximum flexibility,
coupled with the very cold water that occurs during winter operations, 30 minutes of flocculation
is recommended for the expanded DVWTP. The District prefers to maintain the State (UDEQ)
minimum flocculation time of 30 minutes for a direct filtration plant rather than try to
demonstrate the feasibility of a shorter flocculation time via pilot studies. The expanded plant
will likely be operated at high capacity (4 to 6 mgd) during the cold winter periods and therefore
the District prefers a more-conservative design which provides maximum operating flexibility.
Hydraulic and mechanical flocculation have been evaluated and the results are presented below.
Flocculation Alternatives Evaluation
Hydraulic Flocculation
Hydraulic flocculation uses hydraulic headloss associated with changes in flow direction to
provide the necessary mixing energy. Normally, this type of system has no, or very limited,
mechanical components. Usually, one to two feet of headloss is required to achieve optimal
flocculation. Hydraulic flocculation is advantageous when there are relatively stable flow
requirements and stable raw water quality, because once the basin is constructed, the mixing
energy is strictly a function of flow rate and water temperature. However, the DVWTP will treat
water that varies between 2C and 20C. This range of temperature alone results in a 30 percent
variation in mixing energy (velocity gradient). In addition, the variability in plant flow rates can
result in a rather large fluctuation in basin flows. A basin designed to produce 70 sec-1 of first
stage mixing energy at 8.0 mgd would only produce 10 sec1 when operating at 2.0 mgd (the
expected minimum plant flow). Hydraulic flocculation was eliminated from further consideration
because it does not provide the flexibility necessary to meet the treatment objectives. Also, the
Page 6

DRAFT
December, 2006
headloss requirement for hydraulic flocculation would require that the upstream ozone contact
basins have a higher water level compared to other options, thereby increasing construction costs
and pumping costs.
Horizontal Shaft Flocculators
Horizontal shaft configurations, with shafts parallel to flow and spanning multiple stages, were
not considered for this project due to limitations in operational flexibility and costs. Horizontal
shafts can be oriented perpendicular to flow, with a single shaft operating all of the paddles in
one stage of a basin. Horizontal flocculators in this configuration provide some advantages over
vertical flocculation. Horizontal flocculators are efficient and effective flocculators with a
proven track history. However, there is a relatively high level of maintenance associated with
horizontal flocculators because of the long drive shafts, submerged bearings and painted steel
frames, and either wall seals that must be maintained or submerged chains. Horizontal
flocculators are not commonly used for direct filtration plants.
Vertical Shaft Flocculators
Vertical flocculators use efficient, hydrofoil blades to generate mixing energy and have a proven
track record for both small and large water treatment plants. The existing DVWTP has
successfully used vertical-shaft flocculators (with smaller, higher speed pitched blade turbines)
for over 25 years. The main disadvantage of the vertical shaft configuration is the increased
number of flocculators, motors and gearboxes compared to the horizontal configuration.
However, there are no submerged bearings or chains to maintain and individual flocculators can
be repaired without taking a basin out of service. In addition, there are no extended heavy shafts
to maintain, all submerged equipment is stainless steel construction, and the low speed mixers
require lower maintenance.
Recommended Flocculation Type
Vertical-shaft flocculators with hydrofoils are recommended for the expanded DVWTP due to
proven experience, similarities to the Utah Valley WTP and Ashley Valley WTP, the stainless
steel construction, lack of submerged bearings and chains, and increased flexibility. In addition,
the stainless steel construction of the flocculators may be needed to protect the flocculator
equipment against any small residuals of dissolved ozone that may be present in these basins.
The District prefers to have the flocculation basins at least partially open to the atmosphere,
rather than completely covered as the existing basins are, to allow for visual inspection of the
floc and flocculator performance. Final design of the basins will balance this operational need of
the District with the other main needs (mainly, to provide thermal protection for the basins for
the severe winter cold conditions and also the concrete cover provides structural integrity to help
tie the long parallel tall walls of the floc basins together.

Page 7

DRAFT
December, 2006
POTENTIAL USE OF EXISTING FLOCCULATION BASINS

As mentioned previously, the existing DVWTP flocculation system was designed to add a
second basin to expand the plant capacity from 4 mgd to 8 mgd. The existing flocculation basin
(divided into 2 cells with 3 stages each) provides 30 minutes of detention time at 4 mgd with a
total volume of about 84,000 gallons. Each stage is separated by a concrete over-under baffle
wall. A total of 6 vertical-shaft, variable speed flocculators, each with a 1.5 hp motor, are
installed. A concrete deck covers the entire basin with access hatches at the inlet and outlet
channels.
The existing flocculation basin has a sloped top deck with a difference in elevation of about 1
foot from the west side to the east side. According to the 1980 design drawings of the existing
plant, the basins have a maximum water surface elevation of about 5,828 and a floor top-of-slab
elevation of about 5,815. The nominal water depth is 13 feet. The operators note that the basin
can not completely drain by gravity to the backwash ponds as about 2 to 3 feet of water will
remain in the basin when they are drained to full backwash ponds.
The proposed hydraulic profile for the expanded plant, per TM-11, requires that the maximum
water surface elevation in the flocculation basins be approximately 5,838.2 feet. This elevation is
approximately 10 feet higher than the maximum water surface elevation in the existing
flocculation basin. Much of this increased water depth is due to:
Allowance of 2.3 ft of extra head for a possible future clarification process,

Allowance of about 1.0 ft extra head associated with the filter influent flow split weirs,
Extra head-loss associated with the deep bed filters,
Allowance of 1.0 ft of extra head for the possible future UV system at 8 mgd
(See the Hydraulic Profile in TM-11.) Given these requirements, it is structurally infeasible to
use the existing basin for the expanded flocculation basins due to this increased water depth.
Thus, it is not recommended to try to retrofit the existing flocculation basins to serve as basins
for the expanded plants flocculation system.
However, the basins size and elevation allows it to be considered for other potential uses for the
expanded plant. Two such potential uses include:
Storage and equalization of filter-to-waste (FTW) water prior to recycling, and

Storage and equalization of dirty waste backwash water (WWW) prior to entering the
backwash ponds
This latter possibility is not desirable due to problems with solids accumulation in the bottom of
these basins if they were to be used for WWW. In addition, it has been decided that washwater
equalization is not required; the WWW will be sent directly to the washwater/sludge ponds
without equalization. Therefore, it is recommended that the existing flocculation basins be used
to equalize and recycle the FTW water only. Assuming a maximum filter-to-waste volume of
29,000 gallons (4.8 gpm/sf x 240 sf x 25 minutes), the existing flocculation basin can store
approximately 2.9 FTW volumes when completely full. To allow FTW water to flow by gravity
Page 8

DRAFT
December, 2006
to the existing flocculation basin while maintaining the full 84,000 gallon storage capacity, the
water surface elevation in the new filters needs to remain at or above elevation 5,834 feet. (This
allows a total of 6 feet of headloss to drive FTW water through the filter media and effluent FTW
piping to the new FTW equalization basin, which is more than adequate assuming a water
surface elevation of 5,828 in this FTW equalization basin.) TM-11 shows that the hydraulic
profile planned on for the new expanded plant has a constant water surface elevation of 5834.4
over the filters.
TM-10 reviews and recommends residuals and solids handling processes for the expanded plant.
The potential use of the existing flocculation basin for these purposes is discussed therein.
FUTURE CLARIFICATION
Even though clarification will not be included in the expanded DVWTP, the District prefers to
plan for this process if needed or required in the future. Potential reasons for adding clarification
in the future include:
Changes in raw water quality including higher turbidity, TOC, and microbials,
More-frequent and higher algae concentrations in raw water,
More-stringent drinking water regulations including enhanced TOC and/or microbial
removals
There are multiple clarification techniques which could be considered with a range of treatment
benefits, costs, and space requirements including:
Horizontal flow sedimentation, with or without plates/tubes

Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
Ballasted sedimentation (Actiflo)
In order to make full utilization of the new flocculation basins being planned as part of this direct
filtration plant, and given the constraint that the new preozone process will likely use a simple
and effective static mixing process to drive ozone gas into solution, this future clarification
process is most practical to be added after the flocculation process. For this new process, a total
calculated head of 1.5 feet is required for the future clarifiers; thus an allowance of 2.25 feet is
provided in the plants hydraulic profile. Therefore, the top decks of the ozone contact basin and
flocculation basins will end up being about 3.3 feet higher than the filter deck.
FLOCCULATION CONFIGURATION
Number of Cells and Stages
The new flocculation basin for the expanded DVWTP will be divided into two trains of 4.15
mgd capacity each train, similar to the existing basins. This will allow one train to be out of
service for maintenance while still allowing the plant to operate at a flow of at least 4.15 mgd,
(or potentially higher if a temporary waiver were obtained from Utah DEQ on the minimum 30
minute requirement for flocculation HRT with direct filtration plants.) Each cell of the new
Page 9

DRAFT
December, 2006
basin will be configured with multiple stages to optimize hydraulic contact/mixing time and to
provide tapered flocculation if needed. It is recommended to provide 3 stages, similar to the
existing basin, for these purposes. Four flocculation stages might be desired for conventional
treatment to promote settleable floc formation, but is not necessary for direct filtration. Two
flocculation stages is considered insufficient to create good floc under the normal cold water
(2oC) conditions. Each stage will use a parallel flow configuration (as discussed later in this
section) and will be separated by concrete over-under design baffle walls.
Therefore, the new flocculation basin will have six individual flocculators (3 flocculators in each
of the 2 trains). Ideally, each vertical flocculator stage within a train will be designed to be as
close to cubical as possible, with equal length, width and depth. In order to achieve a hydraulic
residence time (HRT) of 10 minutes in each stage at a maximum flow of 4.15 mgd, a total
volume of 28,800 gallons is required. Given that the hydraulic profile and site constraints are
currently dictating a water depth of about 19.4 feet check current profile in these floc basins, this
leads to the following dimensions:
Length = 14
Width = 14
Avg water depth = 18.5 to 19.4? being determined
Stage volume = 28,800 gal
Stage HRT = 10.0 minutes at 4.15 mgd
Actual floc basin and chemical feed storage area layout considerations are forcing a slightly
modified stage dimensions of 13 ft wide x 15 ft length for optimal construction efficiencies. The
resulting surface area of the basins is the same as that of perfect 14 ft x 14 ft basins. A hanging
baffle cut-off wall will be constructed ahead of the first stage of each floc train in order to
attempt to capture any residual off-gas which may get carried over from the ozone contact basin.
Each of the six flocculators should be equipped with a 2 hp motor to provide a maximum G
value of 100 sec-1. Each motor will be equipped with a variable frequency drive (VFD) to
provide optimum mixing flexibility.
Flow Split between Floc Basin Trains
Process flow must be split from a single flash mix pipe to the two trains of the flocculation basin
for the expanded plant. An effective and fairly accurate flow split at design capacity is important
to process performance.
For a plant of this size, it is generally not practical to split the flow between multiple basins using
individual modulating valves and flow meters for each cell. The capital, operations and
maintenance costs associated with effective piping configurations, accurate meters, and
instrumentation are extensive and unnecessary. Using a weir box for flow distribution adds
additional headloss which is undesirable.

Page 10

DRAFT
December, 2006
For the DVWTP project, a very simple flow split approach of using a symmetrical Tee and
piping configuration will be utilized to insure a balanced flow split (+/- 5%) between each of the
two flocculation trains.
Flow Configuration
Flow through the floc basins can either be parallel (from inlet to outlet in a straight line
parallel to the basin exterior walls) or serpentine (from inlet to outlet in a back and forth
direction perpendicular to the basin exterior walls). The existing DVWTP flocculation basins
utilize a parallel flow configuration. Perforated baffles between stages in the parallel
arrangement minimize short-circuiting through the basin. A variation of the parallel flow /
perforated baffles is to use alternating over-and-under baffles with alternating upward and
downward pumping flocculators to develop a pseudo-countercurrent flow pattern. For serpentine
flow, concrete walls create serpentine flow and short-circuiting is minimized by creating a longer
flow path (high length-to-width ratio). The potential advantages of using a more-costly
serpentine flow path, such as reduced short-circuiting, increased ability to taper flocculation
energy and ease of feeding flocculant aid, are not as important for a direct filtration flocculation
system compared to a conventional treatment flocculation system. Therefore, a parallel flow
path, with over-under baffle walls, is recommended for the expanded DVWTP.
Use of inlet weirs for flow split require additional headloss compared to inlet valves, but are
desirable if ozone gas remains dissolved in the water and needs one more chance to off-gas prior
to the floc basins. Provision of an inlet weir provides a good opportunity to create a 4-inch to 6inch drop where additional off gassing can occur, as well as providing a very uniform flow
across the width of each floc basin. A hanging baffle wall will be installed downstream of this
inlet weir to help capture any extra off-gas, which will be piped to the ozone destruct units.
Effluent from each cell of the flocculation basin will discharge over individual weirs into a
common flocculation basin effluent channel. This channel will convey water to the filter inlet
channel. The channel design will allow for an additional 2.25 feet of headloss for a future
clarification process between the flocculation basins and filters.
Summary and Conclusions
The recommended flocculation system for the DVWTP is a two-train basin, with three stages per
train, using a parallel flow configuration with intermediate over-under baffle walls. Inlet
butterfly valves, inlet weirs, and outlet weirs provide flow split and flow isolation functions. Six
hydrofoil flocculators are recommended, each with 2 hp motors and individual VFDs for
optimum flexibility. The flocculated water will discharge over the outlet weirs to a common
effluent channel that will tie directly into the filter inlet channel.

Page 11

DRAFT
December, 2006
Table 7-2
Flocculation Basin Preliminary Design Criteria
Flow Range (mgd)
2.0 to 8.3
Flocculation HRT at Max. Flow (min)
30
No. of Trains
Max Design Flow per Train (mgd)

No. of Stages per Train
Flocculation Vol. (per stage & per train) (gal)
Stage Length x Width Dimensions (ft x ft)
Water Depth each Stage (ft)
o
-1
G value at 2 C (sec )
Number and Type of Flocculator
Flocculator Speed
Max Flocculator Power, each (hp)
4.15
3
28,800 and 86,400
15 x 13
~19.5
40 to 100
6 with Hydrofoil
Variable Speed Drive
2
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION

Table ES-2 of the Executive Summary presents a concept level construction cost opinion for the
new rapid mix system, flow metering system, and flocculation systems for the expanded.
DVWTP. This opinion will be updated with greater detail in the final predesign report for the
DVWTP Expansion Project. The costs to retrofit the existing flocculation basins for equalization
and recycle of filter-to-waste are also presented in Table ES-2 of the Executive Summary.

Page 12

Technical Memorandum No. 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Memorandum No. 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TM No.